JUDGMENT M. M. PAREED PILLAY, J. - Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") on the file of the respondent. Exhibit P-2 notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to produce books of accounts for the years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. Petitioner filed exhibit P-3 objection contending that he has opted the producer under rule 21 of the Rules by filing monthly returns in form No. 9 for the four years 1988-89 to 1991-92 and that there is no specific provision empowering the assessing authority to call for the records especially when monthly assessments have not been completed. Respondent passed exhibit P-4 order rejecting the preliminary objections. Petitioner filed exhibit P-5 petition to reconsider the matter. Petitioner filed O.P. No. 80 of 1993 before this Court to quash the order of the respondent (exhibit P-4 herein). That original petition was disposed of by this Court directing the respondent to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Exhibit P-6 is the judgment in O.P. No. 80 of 1993. Respondent passed exhibit P-7 order rejecting the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner and calling upon him to produce the books of account. Exhibit P-8 is a petition under section 43 of the Act for rectification of the mistakes in exhibit P-7 order. That petition was rejected by the respondent as per exhibit P-9. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that respondent lacked jurisdiction to call for the books of accounts from the petitioner as he has opted the procedure under rule 21. Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner's contention is not tenable as the respondent has only directed production of the books of account for verification and determination of the tax. 3. Rule 18(5) provides that if no return is submitted or if the return submitted appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority can call for the production of the books of account of the assessee. 3. Rule 18(5) provides that if no return is submitted or if the return submitted appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority can call for the production of the books of account of the assessee. Rule 21(13) provides that after the close of the year in which the provisional assessment as laid down in sub-rule (8) or sub-rule (9) or sub-rule (10) has been made or in the course of the year to which a return submitted under sub-rule (12) relates, the assessing authority, if after such scrutiny of the accounts and after such enquiry as it considers necessary, is satisfied that the returns filed are correct and complete, shall finally assess under a single order on the basis of the returns the tax or taxes payable under section 5 or notified under section 10 for the year to which the returns relate. The proviso to rule 21(3) empowers the assessing authority to follow the procedure in rule 18 to determine the turnover to the best of its judgment and finally assess under a single order the tax or taxes payable under section 5 or notified under section 10, if the returns filed appear to it to be incorrect or incomplete. Thus, form a reading of proviso it can be seen that the procedure prescribed in rule 18 can be followed by the assessing authority even in a case where a dealer has opted procedure under rule 21. In view of rule 18(5), contention of the petitioner that the respondent has no jurisdiction in issuing exhibit P2 notice calling upon him to produce the books of account cannot be sustained. Merely because petitioner has chosen to file monthly returns, he cannot keep the books of account from being inspected by the respondent. Petitioner has not made out a case to quash exhibits P-2, P-4, P-7 and P-9. The original petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.